Discussion
I will now discuss my hypotheses and assess whether or not they have been supported by the data. My manipulation checks proved that my manipulations worked accordingly. Moreover, principal axis factoring analysis and the Cronbach’s Alpha test show that my scale for capturing the moral legitimacy perception was reliable as well. Therefore, I can test my hypotheses validly.
One of the clear results from the analysis was the significant influence of transparency on the perception of moral legitimacy of drones. The significance remained consistent throughout all four factorial ANOVA models, the main model, the gender-controlled model, and the two political orientation-controlled models. Therefore, H1(transparency increases moral legitimacy perception) is supported by my analysis. This shows that increasing transparency about the goals and results of the use of drones is indeed increasing the moral legitimacy of drones in the (Dutch) public. Conversely similar to transparency, throughout all four models, it did not matter whether the results of drone usage was beneficial to the Dutch common good. In both conditions of transparency, non-transparency, whether the government was acting for the common good never influenced how the (Dutch) public perceived the moral legitimacy of drones, regardless of their sex and political orientation. Therefore, H2(acting for the common good increases moral legitimacy perception)was not supported by my analysis.
As I tested the normative aspect of legitimacy, it shows that at least for the Netherlands, it is much more important that the government is transparent concerning the use of controversial military technologies than the fact whether or not using it is actually good for the whole of the country. It fits with the general image of the Netherlands, which typically portrays low patriotism and national unity (Mazepus, 2017), and collectivistic behaviour (Hofstede Insights, 2018): the Dutch are indeed, relative to other world cultures, highly individualistic (80/100 points). This could explain the unimportance of acting for the common good. On the other hand, the power distance in the Netherlands is rather low (38/100 points), indicating that in general, hierarchy exists for convenience only, equality is valued and that authorities should facilitate those below it (Hofstede Insights, 2018). In addition, the Netherlands scores extremely low on the masculinity dimension (14/100 points), which makes the Dutch a feminine society (Hofstede Insights, 2018). This directly indicates that decisions need stakeholder-involvement, consensus needs to be strived for (reminiscing the famous Dutch “poldermodel”) and again equality is valued in any power structure. This could explain that transparency is indeed highly valued in the Netherlands when assessing moral legitimacy.
The interaction effect in the last ANOVA model showed that it was more important for the government to be transparent when they were not acting for the common good than when they were.
This could point to the Dutch valuing honesty (Mazepus, 2017), especially after a mistake has been made. So when it turned out that the use of drones was in no way economically beneficial for the whole of the Dutch nation, the Dutch perceived the action as significantly less morally acceptable if the government is not open and clear about the reasons and results. When the use of drones did turn out to be beneficial for the common good, the Dutch public is indifferent whether or not the government is open and clear about it. Apparently, in favourable situations, the Dutch do not think the government is immoral when they are secretive about positive results. However, this makes sense and is not that strange, when considering that positive results by authorities are rarely reported on or highlighted by the biggest media channels (Thussu, 2009).
Although not included in the main theoretical model, the analysis showed that political orientation is quite influential for moral legitimacy perception. In general, it shows that the political ‘left’ finds the use of drones the least moral, whereas the political ‘right’ finds the use of drones the most moral. The political ‘centre’ can be found in the middle. Although this last finding seems to be sensible, it is not inescapably true that the politically nuanced are always to be found between the political left and right for every issue. Especially in the Netherlands, many parties that are not typically left or right wing, can sway heavily left or right dependent on the issue at hand, dependent on the current cabinet and depending on the incumbent party leader (Parlementair Documentatie Centrum, 2018). Although it is very interesting to examine the political stance of current Dutch parties regarding the use of controversial military technologies, it falls outside the scope of this thesis. The aim of this thesis was to empirically identify socialised norms, in order to establish some sort of moral standard to which the moral legitimacy of drones could be assessed. The current political environment is obviously related, but it is by nature very prone to change over time. In contrast, the importance of transparency as part of the ‘moral standard of the Dutch’ should be much more time- and context-invariant, and therefore better a tool to assess the moral legitimacy of controversial governmental actions, such as drones.
The next section will draw conclusions from the results of the analysis and answer the research question. It will also provide some post-study context and implications, and recommendations for future research.